Jeb Bush down to five percent in latest Iowa caucus poll

Yes, that’s 5% as in not even cracking the top five in the latest poll of Iowa Republican caucus voters from Quinnipiac. Bush has yet to perform well in Iowa, but to see him drop so far down is actually quite surprising to me given that he does have fairly strong support in Republican circles.

A new Quinnipiac poll of likely Iowa Republican presidential caucusgoers finds Wisconsin’s Scott Walker in front of the GOP pack with 21 percent support and a 9-point advantage over his closest primary opponents. That’s down from 25 percent and a 12-point lead in Quinnipiac’s February poll, but Walker remains ahead of his Republican rivals, with senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, all huddled together behind the Wisconsin governor. This jibes with the Real Clear Politics average of polls for the Iowa caucuses, which gives Walker a 5.5-point advantage.

Getting the biggest boost in Iowa since the February Quinnipiac poll are Rubio and Cruz, who have both declared their candidacies in the last month. Rubio was polling just 4 percent in Iowa in February to 13 percent support in May. Cruz has had a similar trajectory, from 5 percent in February to 12 percent support in May. Paul is tied with Rubio at 13 percent, but that’s the exact level of support the Kentucky senator had in February.

And Huckabee, who announced Tuesday he is running for president, maintains the 11 percent support he had back in February. Huckabee previosuly ran for president in 2008, surprising lots of political observers when he won the Iowa caucuses that year.

I think Jeb knows he will have a hard time competing in Iowa where the most conservative voters in the GOP base come out to participate. He’s made it a point to say he’s not willing to cater his message on certain issues, like immigration, to tow the conservative line. Therefore, he’s likely setting sights on states like New Hampshire where his message is resonating better.

Nate Ashworth is the Founder and Editor-In-Chief of Election Central. He's been blogging elections and politics for almost a decade. He started covering the 2008 Presidential Election which turned into a full-time political blog in 2012 and 2016.

13 COMMENTS

My impression is that JEB has been purposely avoiding Iowa–and they know it. They’re not “his kinda people,” and he’s been elsewhere, drumming up cash for the later events, instead. I wouldn’t see this as his losing any support. He began his campaign by saying he’ll lose some states, and he might say it is because he didn’t pander to an esoteric group there.

I am more impressed that Rand is number two. I think that’s the most interesting point in the poll.

I’m also surprised that Huckabee isn’t number one. Iowa folks ARE “his kinda people.” He won the last time he ran there. The story should be “Huck loses” if he doesn’t win.

Perhaps Jeb remembers that George HW became president after losing out in the Iowa Caucuses. I applaud Jeb Bush’s ability to raise formidable amounts of cash on his own. He didn’t find final acceptance at the Adelson Primary but George W did well receiving a $ 250,000.00 speaking fee for the event, which was held inside a Las Vegas Casino (guess who owns it). How will history explain to our future school children that a known casino gambler (whose gambling corporation is Sands China Ltd. based in Macau, China.) controlled the United States Congress and Presidential electorate. A tip of the hat to Rand Paul, he only wrote a love letter to the Koch Brothers but it may be enough. No one can raise more private money (through their Newsletters) than the Paul Family.

So you are worried about a private citizen (Adelson) who does business with China affecting our elections with his money but you’re not remotely concerned about the amount of foreign donations rolling into the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests all over the world despite the agreement reached to avoid such donations when Hillary became the US Secretary of State?

The donations going to the Clinton Foundation (however, you want to stir it) are not used to buy political offices for many, many Congressmen or the presidency of the United States. The Foundation doesn’t have enough money to even consider competing with a citizen of the world and wealth of Sherman Adelson.

Sheldon Adelson, to his credit, makes no bones about the fact that he is a political kingmaker. He dominate politics and public policy through the raw power of money. Sheldon Adelson pays much more in gaming taxes to the Chinese government than he does to the U.S. government — Las Vegas has one of the lowest (if not lowest) gaming tax rates anywhere in the world and part of that is thanks to Harry Reid. Adelson also pays a lower
federal income tax rate on his capital gains than does an average American teacher earning $50,000 a year.

The most controversial thing about Adelson is the unrefuted fact that his allegiance to the country of Israel takes precedence over the United States and even Macau, China, where his real money comes from.

I’ll repeat my view: There MUST be some things that money can’t buy, including life, love, and elections in the United States of America.

(1) If you can’t vote,you shouldn’t be able to buy votes. That means corporations, unions, super pacs, et al. may NOT contribute to any campaign or political issue. Period. No groups. Only individuals

(2) There should be a limit on what any individual may contribute, such as $2,700 total PER YEAR to any candidate or political issue. That should INCLUDE Adelson, Soros, the Kochs, Bloomberg, and John Q Public.

The US Gambling Industry is a shocking 240 billion dollar business enterprise. Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson are a very different breed because they climbed in bed with the Triads, which enabled each to build an empire on one of the classic sleazy vices of all time. It wasn’t that Adelson didn’t try to buy the 2012 election, it just happened that Warren Buffet (normally very stingy in political contributions) gave one billion to the Barrack Obama’s campaign, saying “I decided that the only way to really make a statement about the danger of allowing billionaires to buy elections was to plunk down my own money and give conservatives what frightened them the most, a second term for Barack Obama.”

Not much to rebut on George Soros other than his money was made from a brilliant business brain. He made his first real fortune holding against the British pound. Same in Australia and in the US in the 1990’s. His saving grace, if there is one, he gave 33 million to American social charities in 2014.

I never knew anyone who gave a political contribution, big or small, that did not expect something in return.

Nate…I never indicated that I approved of Soros business practices but to give 33 million to charity is commendable. You said they all donate heavily to charities but who are “they”? Which one topped, or came near, Soros’ gift to social charities in 2014?

I am not opposed to gambling if one can afford the financial loss. Not many people can. The Medical Community has recognized gambling as an
addictive disease for over thirty years. Have you not noticed that even the most luxurious casino hotels post signs with a hotline number that complusive gamblers can call for help.

“do as I say not as I do,”is a phrase used or implied by the majority of the population of the world so Warren Buffet does not find himself alone in that discourse. One of Warren Buffet’s enterprises Nebraska Furniture Mart is opening in The Colony and Buffet does the commercials for the new company. He will be giving 2,000 Texans a job so yes, I do like him

I love watching you two go after each other. You both argue intelligently, and use supporting material. You both are adamant, but it’s so refreshing to see facts and arguments without name calling and, well, BS. It shows that people can disagree without being disagreeable. I’m not always able to do that.

I don’t know who tops charity, since, as I said, much of it is kept private as it is a private matter to begin with. Sometimes the numbers leak or are announced. Most of the time they’re not unless you’re running for president and release all your tax returns. By “they” I mean billionaires, multi-millionaires, etc..

By all your measurements, Adelson is no different from Buffet. Both employ untold numbers of people.

I’m pointing out that you started off being mad at Adelson for “buying the election.” Then you explained how great it was that Buffet “bought the election” in 2012 to prove a point. One isn’t better than the other.

You’re inconsistent because you don’t like Adelson’s business, however, you like Buffet so he gets a pass for the exact same behavior you’re criticizing Adelson for.

Am I wrong in that assessment? If you think it’s wrong for billionaires to influence elections, then that disdain should be served equally.

The main difference I find between Adelson and Buffet isn’t Republican or Democrat. It is simply a matter of character. If you are watching or reading the revelations in the transcripts from Adelson’s current courtroom trial then there would be little or no question on that count. Adelson, in his third day of testimony in a Las Vegas courtroom, said of Steve Jacobs “he went squealing like a pig to the government with allegations of influence-peddling and ties to organized crime”. Robert Goldstein, still an executive in Adelson’s company, acknowledged that the Sands’ Macau used a Chinese Triad
leader, Cheung Chi Tai, to run “junkets” and bring in high rollers. Whatever, the outcome of this trial, it has shown the seedy side of the man who expects presidential hopefuls to come to his Casino and prostrate themselves before him in the hope he will make it rain money for them.

If Warren Buffet is friends of organized crime I am unaware of the connection.